‘And God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son and that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but last till eternity.’ This iconic Biblical verse mentioned in Gospel of John, Chapter 3, Verse 16 has served as the principal plank of Christian Theology since centuries. It happens to be the kingpin of evangelists and Bible thumpers. Similarly, the apologists of the Hindutva brigade continue to chant the same slogan of it being a ‘way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos’ whenever they are pressed upon to define the same. This definition of the term Hindutva was accepted by the Supreme Court in the year 1995.

The word Hindutva (ie Hindu-ness) was coined by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his ideological document ‘Hindutva : Who is a Hindu ?’ written in the year 1923. It was in this document that Savarkar opined the concept of ‘pitrabhoomi’ and ‘punyabhoomi’ and described Hindus as those who consider India (A Hindu Rashtra) to be their fatherland as well as their holy land. On the occasion of his 59th birthday in the month of May, Savarkar wrote to his followers, “Hinduise all politics and militarize Hindudom and resurrection of our Hindu Nation is bound to follow.” He further stated, “Hindus should henceforth test all national and international politics and policies through the Hindu point of view alone. Whatever policy or political event contributes to safeguard and promote Hindu interests must be backed up by the Hindus and whatever is likely to prove detrimental to Hindu interests must be condemned and opposed by the Hindus.” However, Hindutva apologists have mastered the art of evading such words of the principal ideologue of Hindutva and have maintained high standards of euphemism revolving around the same old notion of Hindutva being a ‘way of life’.

A dubious game is being played in the nation in the name of Hindutva and Nationalism. In reality it is pseudo-Hinduism and jingoism. A lot of people equate Hindutva with Hinduism but this understanding of Hindutva is flawed since the ancient Vedic religion stands in complete contradiction to Hindutva as Hindutva assaults its fundamental tenets of equality, peace, co-existence and tolerance. Hinduism is the oldest living religion in the world. It can be possibly ruled as the religion with the widest and most tolerant set of beliefs and teachings. Hinduism, unlike other religions, isn’t confined to one Holy Scripture. Its teachings have been enunciated in an array of religious books. Hinduism breaks all ideological barriers and is the only religion of the world whose concept of God encompasses beliefs which include monotheism, polytheism, henotheism, kathenotheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, agnosticism and even atheism. Hinduism has preached to the world the great doctrine of non duality which emphasizes on the fact that all religions are true and service to mankind is the greatest act of religiousness. Based on the teachings of this very religion, Mahatma Gandhi coined satyagraha and ahimsa.

Unfortunately, a religion which is so very liberal by its intrinsic nature is being represented by a rigid ideology of Hindutva in modern India which has traits of theocratic fascism, militant nationalism, genetic-racism, retributive colonialism and Islamophobia. The first and foremost feature of Hindutva is a theocratic state which was envisioned by Savarkar himself. He outlined his vision of a Hindu Rashtra as Akhand Bharat stretching across the entire Indian subcontinent. This theocratic state is the anti-thesis of the democratic secular polity which we cherish today and has a very hostile attitude towards religious minorities especially Muslims. MS Golwalkar, the Second Sarsanghchalak of the RSS, wrote the following in his book, We or Our Nationhood Defined, in relation to religions with foreign origins, “They have no place in national life, unless they abandon their differences, adopt the religion, culture and language of the nation and completely merge themselves in the national race. So long, however, as they maintain their racial, religious and cultural differences, they can only be foreigners. In Hindustan exists, and must exist, the ancient Hindu nation, and nothing else but the Hindu nation. All those not belonging to the national, i.e. Hindu race, religion, culture and language, naturally fall out of the pale of real national life.” He further stated, “The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea except the glorification of the Hindu religion and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation, and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or they may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights. There is, at least should be, no other course for them to adopt. We are an old nation, let us deal as old nations ought to deal with the foreign races who have chosen to live in our country.” On Muslims, Mr Golwalkar commented, “Ever since that evil day when the Muslims first landed in Hindustan, right upto the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been fighting gallantly to take on these despoilers.” Bal Thackeray, a contemporary regional Hindutva leader (Dubbed as Hindu Hriday Samraat) stated in an interview to India Today in 1984, “They [Muslims] are spreading like a cancer and should be operated on like a cancer. The country should be saved from the Muslims and the police should support them [Hindu Maha Sangh] in their struggle just like the police in Punjab were sympathetic to the Khalistanis.” It is this very hostile attitude towards minorities especially Muslims which has made right wing Hindu Nationalist parties a political pariah in mainstream Indian politics. Subramanian Swamy, President of the Janata Party and a Hindutvavadi recently elaborated on the concept of Hindutva in the most atrociously fascistic fashion which smelt of genetic racism. He opined that India should be declared a Hindu Rashtra where non Hindus could vote only if they would accept their Hindu ancestry. He wanted India to be renamed as Hindustan, a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus. Such concepts expose the congruity between theocracy and gene-based racism through Hindutva. Militant Nationalism is another key feature of Hindutva which fantasizes an uncompromising foreign policy based on non interaction, military threats and invasions. This uncompromising approach of the nationalists was born way back in 1950 when Syama Prasad Mukherjee resigned from the Interim Central Government when Jawaharlal Nehru invited Liaqat Ali Khan for the historic Delhi Pact which sought to safeguard minority rights in both the nations and establish minority commissions. Mukherjee saw this as an act of appeasement and resigned from the Cabinet since he held East Pakistan directly responsible for the large influx of Hindu refugees in Bengal. The sole notion of patriotism for Hindutvavadis is Pakistan bashing and jingoism. Most of the times they act like a xenophobic bunch of pseudo-patriots. In the year 2002 during his Gujarat Gaurav Yatra, Narendra Modi, another Hindutva poster boy, remarked, “The day Hindu terrorism comes into being, Pakistan would be wiped off the world map.” The annihilation of the neighbouring state of Pakistan seems to be the penultimate aim of Hindu nationalists. Other Hindutva intellectuals like Swamy have even developed an Indianized verion of the Nazi Lebensraum (Living Space) as they advocate in favour of India invading Bangladesh and annexing the region from Sylhet to Khyber in order to accommodate illegal immigrants coming from Bangladesh. Others argue in favour of militarily taking over PoK. Undoing the colonization effect has always been a dream of right wing nationalists. It was this ambition which drove Golwalkar to emphasize on the need for reversing the cultural intrusions resulting due to the invasion of colonial invaders like the Muslims and Christians. Keeping this in mind, LK Advani embarked on the Rath Yatra in the 1990s which ultimately culminated with the demolition of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya and spread riots all across the nation. This mentality further influenced people like Swamy to suggest removing the mosque at Kashi Vishwanathan and 300 other mosques with temples. Admiration of Adolf Hitler is another interesting feature of Hindutvavadis. Golwalkar wrote, “To keep up the purity of its race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by purging the country of the Semitic race – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the roots, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.“ The threat of yet another Holocaust against minorities in modern India never really died since we always had people like Bal Thackeray who once said in an interview, “I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common. What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand.” Even LK Advani, the man who spearheaded the Rath Yatra of the 1990s was not left far behind in praising Hitler. When Sonia Gandhi called Narendra Modi a ‘merchant of death’, Advani remarked that ‘Narendrabhai can’t be a merchant of death but he can certainly be Hitler.”

Looking at the quotations presented above, one would certainly want that Hindutva as an ideology should to be proscribed immediately but the irony lies in the fact that an equal number of good sayings of Hindu nationalists can be brought forth to prove that Hindutva is a secular and inclusive philosophy. Savarkar opposed the Partition and prescribed one man, one vote system, be the man Hindu or Muslim as summarized by BR Ambedkar in his book ‘Pakistan or Partition of India’. In the year 1998, Bal Thackeray said, “We must look after Muslims and treat them as part of us.” During the BJP’s recent National Executive Meet in Surajkund, LK Advani, reiterated the party’s commitment to secularism and condemned the movie ‘Innocence of Muslims’ which had angered Mohammedans all across the globe. It is this paradox which adds mystery to the concept of Hindutva. However, what is clear is that there are certain pet issues of Hindutvavadis, namely construction of a Ram temple at Ayodhya, Abrogation of Article 370, Enactment of a Uniform Civil Code, etc a slight change in the position of which could lead to repositioning of Hindutva as a blessing instead of being a threat for India.

As far as the Ram Temple is concerned, the right wing parties, BJP, in particular, need to come out with an unequivocal condemnation of the demolition of the Babri Mosque which took place on the night of 6th December, 1992 in the presence of top Hindutva leaders. They need to stop justifying the heinous act of razing the mosque to the ground in the name of Lord Ram and make no extra-judicial efforts to construct the Ram Temple while simultaneously letting the law take its own course. This would be tough for right wing parties as the demolition served as their claim to fame but in a secular polity, no one can be spared for such antics. Political history will never forget the Hindu Nationalist Parties for the demolition since their participation in the conspiracy is self evident. One day prior to the demolition, Vajpayee, the most liberal face of Hindutva, exalted his supporters to perform kar seva at the place by saying that ‘rokna ka toh sawaal hi nahi hai‘. He further stated, “zameen se nukele pattthar nikal rahe hai, unpe toh koi baith nahi sakta, zameen ko samthal banana padega” a statement which was seen as a tacit approval to the act of demolition which took place the next day. Repenting for this historical mistake would make parties like the BJP more approachable in the future.

Abrogating Article 370 is a principle demand of the Hindu Nationalist parties but the reason why this demand is looked upon with suspicion and scepticism is because the Hindu Nationalist parties merely look at the ill-treatment meted out to Kashmiri Pandits while they keep mum on the atrocities which have been unleashed on innocent Muslims living in the Valley. The right wing needs to support the idea of scrapping AFSPA from the state of Jammu and Kashmir and they should ask for an independent probe into the human rights violations carried out by the Indian Army in the valley right through the days of insurgency since 1987. The premise that normalcy would return to the Valley if Article 370 was removed is put to death when the same Hindu Nationalists parties advocate in favour of draconian laws like the AFSPA which haven’t helped in containing militancy but have led to innumerable injustices and excesses which have given rise to the feeling of secessionism.

A secular and uniform civil code for India is a must for it to achieve gender equality and social justice. Hindutvavadis have been raising the issue since the days of the Shah Bano Verdict which came during the premiership of Rajeev Gandhi but they have failed to capitalize on the issue and drum up support for it since they have communalized it by solely talking of the need for the abolishment of Muslim personal laws. The enactment of a uniform civil code will not only mean the abolishment of the Muslim Personal Laws but also the personal laws of other communities including the Hindu code Bills (like the Hindu Marriage Act). It’s totally wrong on the part of Hindutvavadis to try and impose Hindu Code Bills on Muslims, Christians, Jews etc as they were on Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains since the roots of the Hindu Code Bills lie in the Dharamsastras which are Hindu religious texts not literary pieces of secular jurisprudence. Secondly, Abrahimic faiths have a completely different background and history. Attempting to include them under the ambit of the term ‘Hindu’ as the indigenous Dharmic faiths were would prove to be detrimental.

Illegal immigration into the territory of India is a cause of concern for everyone but the reason why Hindu Nationalists have failed on this front is because of their evident hypocrisy in dealing with it. Over here they have again tried to cash in on the Hindu-Muslim clash by selectively picking on illegal immigration from Bangladesh and turning a blind-eye towards infiltration from Burma and Nepal. Pitching the majority against the minority is the modus operandi of racism. What is worse is that in Kashmir, Hindu Nationalists stand in opposition to separatists but in Assam they take a complete U-turn by sloganeering in favour of Bodi outfits many of which still hold separatist dreams and are working of maiming India by trying to carve out a separate nation for Bodos or a separate state for Bodos free from Assamese control. This duplicity of Hindutvavadis in relation to condemnation of Kashmiri separatists and coronation of Bodo secessionists needs to be done away with.

Communalization of education is another charge which has been thrown up on the nationalists ever since Murli Manohar Joshi as HRD Minister tried to rewrite the syllabus of History textbooks under the banner of ‘Indianization, Spiritualization and Nationalization’. It’s true that an unbiased account of history is extremely important since modern India has a rich and glorious past but what needs to be kept in mind is that when we talk of religious persecution, we don’t merely talk of the brutality meted out by some of the barbaric Muslim invaders on Hindus but also of the brutality which the Buddhists had to face at the hands of fanatic Hindu emperors and the testing days of both Hindus and Muslims under the British Raj. To portray Hindus in history textbooks as the sole persecuted community of ancient India is not only factually fraudulent but is also capable of flaring up communal sentiments. To have an unbiased account of history it is also important to not let academic debates and researches on issues like cow slaughter and beef consumption be subverted just because the truth doesn’t suit somebody’s political goals. As far as the question of Hindu pride is concerned, the nationalists have every right to raise their voice in relation to preserving Hindu culture by cleaning up holy rivers like Ganga and safeguarding sites like Ram Setu which they consider to be pious. The false propaganda of extensive minority population growth, razing of mosques purportedly created at the sites of Hindu temples and the intolerant act of pleading everyone to either accept their Hindu ancestry or reconvert need to be trashed since they are not sustainable secular pleas. It’s true that India is no exception to historical blunders but as Sitaram Yechury very rightly pointed out that, “if the process of undoing historical wrongs is unleashed then there are no limits that can be set for going back into the history. The son cannot be punished for the father’s crime; leave alone crimes committed by generations ago even if these charges can be substantiated.”

I would like to sum up by saying that if Hindus are being victimized or oppressed just because they are Hindus or because of evident minority bias then everybody needs to stand up for them but the idea of establishing a dictatorial Hindu state in a country which is currently being governed in a democratic fashion is simply unacceptable. The most important task infront of the nationalists is to define Hindutva. The BJP, which is the largest Hindu Nationalist Party in India, doesn’t have the word ‘Hindutva’ in its party constitution. Not only does it need to incorporate the word ‘Hindutva’ in its party constitution but it also needs to define it as ‘a way of life of Indian people’ where Indians are not simply those whose ancestors were Hindus or those whose religion was born over here but an Indian should be defined as ‘anyone who wishes to be one’ as beautifully said by Mani Shankar Aiyar. The nationalists need to understand that recognition of India’s ancient past is necessary for establishing a feeling of cultural nationalism but trying to define everything as per Hindu terminology is not an act of nationalism but of supremacism and cultural hegemony. As Indian Nationalists we should all hold in great reverence the contributions of various communities in building this great nation and hang our heads in shame and be remorseful about the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989, Babri Mosque demolition in 1992, Post Babri Masjid riots, Godhra Train burning incident, Gujarat Riots of 2002 and Kandhamal Riots of 2008. If we can do this without any excuses, no one can accuse us of being fundamentalists, pseudo-secularists or appeasers. The solution to the dilemma which we face today can be found in the words of Robert F Kennedy, “We have learnt to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling but not in common effort, the question is not what policies we should seek to enact, the question is whether we can find in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose which will recognize the terrible truths of our existence. We must realize that this short life can never be enriched by hatred or revenge.”

SAIF is SOB,i dont need a muslim to educate me,1st let him tell why was Mohd a pervert n inspite of many wives not a single child!Though an impotent why did he marry many n hw come he raped many

Chor

A rather foolish reply that has nothing to do with the points raised for discussion. If you cannot say anything useful, keep this crap to yourself. No one cares.

http://twitter.com/sumanthbharatha Sumanth Sharma

I wished CRI moderates and keeps lunatics out. Certainly such language should not be allowed and anyone using such language should be disallowed permanently fro the forum.

http://www.facebook.com/Shashikiran.gm Shashi Kiran G M

Two Points I disagree with the Author… How did the 300 old mosque come up at Kashi.. Aurangazeb destoryed the temple there and built it there.. should the Author not have mentioned that….

Secondly we all know that Buddhism, Existed in Afghanistan, before Islam invasions began… The Buddhist civil society came under severe attack by the invaders.. It is this which cuased the demise of Buddhists in Indian Sub-continent(except SL)…. Can the Author of this Article cite proof of Hindu Atrocities against Buddhists(not Romila Thapar or Irfan Habib please)… Who destroyed the Bamiyan Budhas in Afghanistan…..

Talking about Islamophobia – Why did Muslims of India protest(not peacefully, Peaceful protest is fine) about Myanmar Killings or that Stupid Film on Prophet Mohammed..

Why are some Indian leaders like Akbaruddin Owaisi and Bakruddin supporting Bangladeshis immigrants in the Assam Conflict…

During Ram Navami this year Mr Owaisi made hateful statements against Lord Ram’s Mother. Was the Author Deaf when it happened….

http://www.facebook.com/Shashikiran.gm Shashi Kiran G M

Mughals had the practice of Slave Trade.. Prisoners of War would be Catastrated to become Hijdas and then sold .. This is mentioned in Jehnagir-Nama by the King himself …. Hindu Women were also sold and were used as Sex Slaves… How did Hindu Kush Term come into being….

Have the Muslims ever apologized for it.. We can blame it on Marxist historians but what about Love Jihad… Why are they doing this.. will the Author Ever question his own community elders in Kerala and Mangalore about it… Why should we not be Wary in such a case.. We do not hate ur beliefs.. but unless you reform there shall be hostilities between Islam and Other Religions… Islamophobia is not a Indian Phenomenon.. it is a Global one.. And you say we are playing the Victim…

Lets Talk about Womens Rights in Islam?? Why is Polygamy permitted.. what are the Author’s Views about it??

http://twitter.com/yesiam88 abc

Would like to make few points here-

1) article 370 is crass communalism on its face so needs to go because of that not because hindutvawadis have sympathy for pandits.

2) By UCC hindus are not imposing anything on anybody they are just saying the foundation of secular society must be on equal reatment not religious differences, Is the writer saying he wants sharia law. I never fail to understand why muslims need to pampered so much, not only that the author warns that it may prove to be detremental.

3) Hindutvavadis dont say replace all the mosques, but babri in good faith dont you think has to be resolved. Nobody is saying destroy ajmer dargah( although it has its own history). Bbar was invader so it has to be understood in that aspect. On one hand writer pleads for seperate laws but shamelesly doesnt recognise the importance of ayodhya to hindus.

4) About illegal immigration he fails to point out the crass communal vote bank politics being played out by his favourte commies like yechury and congressi pseudosecular like mani shankar aiyer. We must understand that we dont have an immigration policy , but lets face it india was created for nonmuslims so the extraordinary amount of muslims population ( who are not accomodating of secular principles and demand one sided secularism) is a threat and a demographic bomb. Hindutvavadis are right in pointing out the decreas in hindu population in undivided india ( from 75% to 66.4%) and subsequent rise in muslim population.

From the first lines author presents hindutva as fascism. I would say another way of it that all the religion outside subcontinent have been indianized specially abrahamic faiths. So may hindutva has something positive to say here. Savarkar is right as the perhaps the only nation where hindus can identify with our policies will be driven by it and actually have been so. Appeasing OIC has not helped us we see it now.

In the end i do agree that we being at war with each other will not help. But it would better help the indian society if muslims would learn to appreciate the rules of secular society rather than pushing everything as there demands and integrate and work together for better.

http://twitter.com/kdinku Dinakar Kamath

This argument is cogent and forceful. But truth is something totally different.Is it not true that he put forward such arguments and criticise majority community only here in India? can he talk about all these things in Pakisthan or for that matter wherever Muslims are sizeable numbers? unthinkable!He want us to practise secularism and democracy as it suits him today as he is in minority.he want to buy time and once they are in sizeable numbers demographically like Kerala/Bihar/UP/ total equation will change.Attitude will dramatically change and then no debate no arguments and discussions no human rights nothing and last bullshitting with secularism Only swords and bullets rape abduction conversion terrorism will speak. At least to avoid that we have to retain identity of this nation as Hindu. This nation will remain secular in its truest sense with equal opportunity in all walks of life for its citizens only when its a Hindu Nation.This requires no proof.evident from the everyday goings on in the world.True tolerance will also be found only here as long as Hindus are in Majority.Rest all are for debate and arguments only not for practising.Understand this first.
These larger minorities ( Muslims and Christians) have to imbibe this magnanimous quality of Hindu’s and get integrated in the national main stream keeping their identity as far as their faith is concerned intact .No conversion and love jihad no bribing or forcing to convert of other faith practising people to increase the numbers and take political advantage joining with pseudo secularists to further extend the same scheme will not do any good to them.In the long run as was pointed out in the argument by Khan our life is too small to waste in hatred and revenge.Who should know this better?

http://twitter.com/raksopenmind Rakesh Babu G R

You had me with you, but you lost me at some point.

Anyway, the way you have *quoted* Advani is quite wrong. You write:

Advani remarked that ‘Narendrabhai can’t be a merchant of death but he can certainly be Hitler.”

You have put quotation marks and called the above statement a quotation in the next paragraph which suggests that it is an actual quote(or a translation). But it is not.Here is the actual quote from Advani :

Asked what he thought of BJP leader Keshubhai Patel’s statement that
compared Modi to Hitler, Advani said such terms are “usually used
against someone for being autocratic, and has nothing to do with
violence.” The BJP leader also ruled out disciplinary action against
Keshubhai saying, “he has not done anything that calls for disciplinary
action.” from http://www.indianexpress.com/news/advani-defends-modi-targets-sonia-buddha/247955/0

May be I am wrong, there might be an actual quote like that. Please point to it if that is the case. Anyway my thoughts on the article:

1. Agree with you that people do lot of verbal gymnastics when they define “Hindutva” and some of the proponents seem very illiberal. That needs to change. Period.

2. UCC is not illiberal. There are certain universal human rights that need to be protected for all citizens of the country, and that is the intention of UCC.

3. Advocating stopping of illegal immigration is not being illiberal. Why should the taxpayers of this country pay for illegals from another country?

4. Advocating strong action against Pakistan is not being illiberal. We need to follow “Sama Dana Bheda Danda”. If Pakistan doesn’t do what is expected of a responsible country and acts like a failed state, it will get the treatment that it deserves.

5. Hindutva-vadis should make most of their demands in a strictly liberal language. The ones that can’t be argued in a liberal language should be dropped. The demands can be summarised as follows:

a. Freedom of speech : You should be able to criticize religion all you want. You should be able to persuade people to not get converted. Right now, there are no laws to ban conversions. Banning conversions is illiberal. But, one doesn’t have freedom of speech to criticize the religions who are doing the converting. So, the demand should be to get full freedom of speech to persuade people from being converted and even get back people to their original religion.

b. Get back the control of temples: One way to propagate religion is to do it using temples. But, many of the biggest and most visited temples are still in the control of state. The state has no business doing it as it prevents people from using them to propogate religion in the way and at a scale they want to.

c. Ayodhya should be treated purely a property dispute. You can fund the petitioners as private citizens, but shouldn’t ask the govt to intervene in any way.

d. Demand for ban on cow slaughter should be stopped. It is too arbitrary. You can promote non-slaughter of cows. If you have cash, start an organisation that buys cows for a higher price than that of meat got from slaughtered cows.

si91

The author must be commended for the sheer volume of secularist propaganda contained within his essay. Many of his claims are common misconceptions that are refuted in Koenraad Elst’s “The Saffron Swastika”, particularly the tired notion of “HIndu fascism.”

That Hinduism is not Hindutva is something that Savarkar himself made clear in the very “Hindutva” pamphlet that the author quotes, so there is no dispute on that point. However, the author does not provide any evidence to support his claim that Savarkar desired a Hindu *theocratic* state. The concept of Akhand Bharat only means a United India; such an irredentist claim does not automatically imply any theocratic sentiment. Ironically, his own lavish praise of Hinduism would suggest that such a thing would be impossible. Hindus have never had a theocratic state in the Christian or Islamic sense. Unlike popes and caliphs, Brahmin priests and sanyassi monks have never held political power, purposefully divorcing themselves from politics. Indeed, the Brahmins that have held political power, like Chanakya, have been those who dropped their traditional priestly role. That is not to say, however, that Hindu kingdoms were “secular” in the Western sense of the word, that is, completely divorced from religious affairs. Hindu kings were staunch Hindus, but because they were Hindus, were almost always pluralists as well, giving patronage to Hindu shrines as well as Buddhist, Jain, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and Zoroastrian ones as well. Indeed, the notion of secularism came into existence in Europe as a result of Europe’s uniquely disastrous history of merging political and religious power. India has never had such a history, and thus the notion of secularism is European cultural baggage blindly retained from the colonial period by shameless Anglophile like Nehru, entirely unsuited for Indian society.

Indeed, the very notion of theocracy is rooted in the exclusivity of the Islamic and Christian traditions. Both believe in only One God, One Holy Book, One set or rituals, and both promise those who fail to adhere to this strict set of divine diktats with punishment in this life and the next. Such a bigoted view of the world manifests itself in the brutality and persecution that characterizes Islamic and Christian theocracies. Such a notion would be entirely unsustainable in a pluralistic Hindu society, and no Hindu nationalist leader or ideologue has ever proposed the creation of such a state. Indeed, they have, in fact, been very critical of the same. In the RSS’ book “Why Hindu Rashtra” author K. Surya Narayan Rao says:

“As Hindu Rashtra is not a religious concept, it is also not a political concept. It is generally misrepresented as a theocratic state or a religious Hindu State. Nation (Rashtra) and State (Rajya) are entirely different and should never be mixed up. State is purely a political
concept. It is political authority with sanction concerned with the governance of the people, laying down and directing the policies of the government. The State changes as the political authority shifts from person to person or party to party. But the people and the Nation remain the same. ”

Indeed, the same M.S. Golwalkar, who the author lambastes as intolerant, also rubbishes accusations that a Hindu Rashtra will be similar to Islamic or Christian theocratic states. In his “Bunch of Thoughts,” he unequivocally condemns them for their bloody history of persecution of other faiths and denominations:

“In spite of this catholic and rational approach of Hindu Rashtra towards the so-called minorities, it is amazing that some people should harbour fear that the ‘minorities’ live in mortal peril if Hindu Rashtra comes into its own. The fear, if at all genuine, can only be due to their misconception that ‘Hindu Rashtra’ would treat other religious groups in much the same way as the Semitic religions did. The first Semitic religion was Judaism-an intolerant faith. It was this intolerance that nailed Christ on the Cross. Then came Christianity, the child of the former. That too was equally intolerant. Doubtless Christ was a great saint. But later, what went on in the name of Christ had nothing to do with him. It was no Christianity but only ‘Churchianity’. The saying “There was but one true Christian and he died on the Cross” is true to the letter. The Christians committed all sorts of atrocities on the Jews by giving them the label ‘Killers of Christ’. Hitler is not an exception but a culmination of the 2000-year long oppression of the Jews by the Christians. Then came Islam – a long story of ‘Sword and Koran’ written in the tears and blood of millions of innocent human beings. It’s latest chapter of ‘Pakistan’, the self-declared theocratic Islamic State, is no different with the entire Hindu population butchered and driven out from its western wing and the same process continuing in its eastern wing. All these have ingrained in their blood intolerance of other faiths.

The fear that Hindu Rashtra will imperil the existence of other religious groups arises by applying the above Semitic yardstick to it and imagining that the concept of Hindu Rashtra in analogous to that of the Semitic states notorious for their religious bigotry and persecutions.”

Indeed, in the same book, Golwalkar specifically defends Indian religious minorities’ freedom of worship, only condemning the notion of “minority vs majority” divide-and-rule manipulation that is exploited by Indian politicians today:

“So, all that is expected of our Muslim and Christan co-citizens is the shedding of the notions of their being ‘religious minorities’ as also their foreign mental complexion and merging themselves in the common national stream of this soil. As far as the national tradition of this land is concerned, it never considers that with a change in the method of worship, an individual creases to be the son of the soil and should be treated as an alien. Here, in this land, there can be no objection to God being called by any name whatever. Ingrained in this soil is love and respect for all faiths and religious beliefs. He cannot be a son of this soil at all who is intolerant of other faiths…”

“…As such, the so-called minorities living here have nothing to lose but everything to gain by the rejuvenation of Hindu Rashtra. It is the Hindu thought alone which, in this wide world, has recognised the immanence of one Supreme Power in the entire humanity and has respected and even protected and encouraged all types of cults and creeds to grow and blossom to their fulfillment. All these factors point to the fact that it is only a strong and resurgent Hindu Rashtra that can stand guarantee to the free and prosperous life of the so-called minorities here sharing equal opportunities as the proud children of the motherland.”

The accusation of fascism leveled against Golwalkar come almost entirely from his writings in “We: Our Nationhood Defined.” However, as scholar Koenraad Elst points out, this was Golwalkar’s first book, and therefore not as representative of his political and social views as later publications, like “Bunch of Thoughts.” Further, as Elst shows, Golwalkar’s quote about “foreign races” is taken out of context. The book was published in 1939, before Holocaust had happened, and thus the word “race” as Golwalkar used it cannot be construed to have the narrow, biological meaning that was ascribed to it in a post-Nazi world. Rather, as Golwalkar used it, it merely meant a loosely connected group of people. Also, the fact that the Partition of India had not yet taken place must be taken into account. At the time Golwalkar wrote the book, there was much pro-Pakistani secessionist sentiment in India. As such, it is hardly surprising that Golwalkar would want Indian Muslims to revere the culture and heritage of the Hindu majority, given that it was those who rejected any connection at all with Hindu culture who were calling for the vivisection of his country. Golwalkar specifically says that they should be granted full citizenship if they respect Hindu culture and religion and live in harmony with Hindus, something that many of his Muslim contemporaries refused to do, preferring to separate themselves from their Hindu neighbors on *religious grounds*. Indeed, with India still plagued by Islamic secessionism, terrorism, and communal rioting to this day, Golwalkar’s concerns about Muslims putting their religious identity before their national identity was perhaps rather prescient.

As far as Golwalkar’s claim about Hindus fighting gallantly against Muslim despoilers is concerned, this is simply a fact. As the great historian Sita Ram Goel points out in his book “Heroic Hindu Resistance to Muslim Invaders” the reason Hindu culture survived centuries of Muslim invasions and tyranny is not because Muslim warlords and emperors did not try to exterminate Hinduism and Islamicize India, but because Hindu kings like Shivaji, Maharana Pratap, Prithviraj Chauhan, Lachit Borphukan, etc. fought back valiantly.

Indeed, Hindu convert and Vedic Acharya David Frawley (also known as Vamadeva Shastri) points out the absurdity and inevitable vagueness of the accusation of Hindu theocracy in his book “Arise Arjuna: Hinduism and the Modern World”

“There are those who warn that Hindu rule would mean the creation of a Hindu theocratic state? Yet what standard Hindu theology is there, and what Hindu theocratic state has ever existed? Will it be a Shaivite, Vaishnava, or Vedantic theocracy? What Hindu theocratic model will it be based upon? Is there a model of Hindu kings like the Caliphs of early Islam to go back to, or like the Christian emperors of the Middle Ages?

What famous Hindu king was a fundamentalist who tried to eliminate all other beliefs from the land or tried to spread Hinduism throughout the world by the sword? Does Rama or Krishna provide such a model? Does Shivaji provide such a model? If no such model exist what is the fear of a militant Hindu theocratic rule based upon?

Traditional Hindus do exist. There are Hindus who are caught in conservative or regressive social customs, like untouchability or mistreatment of women, which should not be underestimated. There are serious problems in Hindu society that must be addressed, but these should be examined as per their nature and cause, which is not some uniform Hindu fundamentalism but wrong practices that are often contrary to real Hindu thought.

To lump them together as problems of Hindu fundamentalism fails to examine them adequately but, rather, uses them as a scare tactic to discredit Hinduism as a whole. There are some Hindus who may believe that their religion is superior and want to keep it separate from other religions. In this regard they are no different than orthodox Christians and Muslims.”

The author then cites Bal Thackeray as evidence of Hindu fascism and Islamophobia. Yet, Thackeray is, as the author himself points out, head of a regional party, with regional interests. Shiv Sena Marathias are also hostile towards non-Marathis in general, but that can hardly be seen as a Hindutva trait. Furthermore, his Shiv Sena is not a member of the Sangh Parivar, which is where the notion of Hindutva originiated. Thackeray’s comments, reprehensible though they are, can hardly be seen as representative of Hindutva ideology as a whole. Further, it is hardly surprising that he would make them, given that he having been an adult at the time of India’s Partition, personally witnessed the horrendous effects of Muslim malignancy (something that, incidentally, the author does not once mention as being a contributory factor in the emergence of Hindu nationalism).

Furthermore, the remarks of Subramanian Swamy can hardly be considered to be representative of the Hindutva movement as a whole, given that they were made barely a year ago, and the Hindutva movement has been active for decades stretching back prior to Indian independence. Ironically, Swamy himself was not always a Hindutva ideologue. As late as 2000, he wrote an article in the Marxist newspaper Frontline, criticizing the RSS for its supposed fascism and militancy. Further, Swamy’s recommendation that non-Hindus be denied the vote if and only if they refused to acknowledge their Hindu ancestry must be juxtaposed with the fact that it was Indian Muslims who rejected any and all association with Indian Hindus, including blood ties, seeing themselves as the descendants of Islamic invaders rather than Hindu converts, who supported Pakistani secessionism. Swamy wants non-Hindu Indians to accept a genetic fact to create a sense of familial brotherhood between Hindus and non-Hindus in India.

It is strange that the author actually sees Syama Prasad Mukherjee’s resignation in response to the Delhi Pact as worthy of condemnation, as he himself acknowledges that Hindu refugees were fleeing from East Pakistan at the time. Mukherjee clearly saw that Pakistan would not live up to its promise to protect its minorities, and the fact that Hindus in both Pakistan and Bangladesh have suffered from slow extermination over the years is indicative of how prescient he was, and how naive Nehru was for taking Liaquat’s word. Indeed, given that Pakistan is a nation whose very existence is based on a denial of all things Indian and a special hatred for all things Hindu, that came into existence by butchering, looting, and raping Hindus, it is baffling that the author accuses Hindutvavadis of “bashing” Pakistan. Pakistan’s multitude of sins speak for itself, and Hindutva criticism of the Islamofascism that characterizes Pakistan is hardly “bashing” especially when India’s so-called “secular” parties refuse to speak a word against Pakistan’s gruesome human rights record. Hindutvavadis may want to destroy Pakistan, but, as Praful Goradia points out in his book, “Unfinished Agenda,” Pakistani leaders have desired to do the same to India and Islamicize the entire subcontinent. Hindutvavadis, in contrast, want Pakistan to return to its Hindu heritage so that it can peacefully return to the Hindu mainstream that it was part of prior to the invasion of Islamic marauders.
(cont)

si91

It is rather ironic that the author compares the
Hindutva desire to take Bangladeshi land as somehow comperable to Nazi
Lebensraum. The Hindutvavadis want to reunite the two halves of Bengal, which
were severed as a result of Islamofascist bigotry and genocide. Indeed, it was
the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh that were a result of Islamic
Lebensraum, given that both states are exterminating their Hindu populations to
create “living space” for Muslims only. Indeed, one wonders why the
author does not criticize Bangladeshi illegal immigration, which he himself
admits is the cause of the Hindu irredentist claims to Bangladesh, as
Bangladeshi Lebensraum, especially given Bangladeshi settler’s attacks in
Indian Bodos a few months ago.

It is even more baffling that the author sees Hindutva attempts to reverse
colonialism or retake Pok as fascist. If Pok is, as its name suggest, occupied
by Pakistan, then why shouldn’t India retake it and expel the Pakistani
infiltrators? Further, what exactly is wrong with attempting to reverse
colonialism? Should all Indian independence activists be derided as
“fascists” for attempting to reverse colonialism? Should Sardar Patel
be derided as a “fascist” for uniting the Princely States into India?
Even if Hindutvavadis want to reverse the colonial influences of Christians and
Muslims, one wonders what exactly is wrong with that. As Frawley points out in
his book “Hinduism and the Clash of Civilizations,” the Hindutva
movement is essentially an Indian version of the indigenous rights movements in
other countries, which are generally not derided as fascist by the
international media. Indeed, it is the Christian and Muslim colonizers who have
virtually exterminated these cultures who are derided as the true fanatics when
these situations are broadcast internationally, and the world’s sympathy
generally resides with their victims. Only in Hindu-majority India are the
*victims* of Islamic and Christian bigotry considered to be fanatical for
attempting to re-assert their pride in their indigenous heritage, while those
who support the despoiling of that same culture are seen as the victims.

“The Hindu cause is similar to the cause of native and tribal peoples all
over the world, like native American and African groups. Even Hindu concerns
about cultural encroachment by

western religious and commercial interests mirrors those of other traditional
peoples who want to preserve their cultures. Yet while the concerns of native
peoples have been taken up by the left worldwide, the same concerns of Hindus
are styled right-wing or communal, particularly by the left in India!

When native Americans ask for a return of their sacred sites, the left in
America supports them. When Hindus ask for a similar return of their sacred
sites, the left in India opposes them and brands them as intolerant for their
actions! When native peoples in America or Africa

protest missionaries for interfering with their culture, they are supported by
the left. Yet when Hindus express the same sentiments, they are attacked by the
left. Even the Hindu demand for rewriting the history of India to better
express the value of their indigenous traditions is

the same as what native Africans and Americans are asking for. Yet the left
opposes this Hindu effort, while supporting African and American efforts of a
similar nature.

In countries like America, native traditions are minorities and thereby
afforded a special sympathy. Leftists in general tend to support minority
causes and often lump together black African and native American causes as
examples of the damage caused by racism and colonialism. In India, a native
tradition has survived the colonial period but as the tradition of the majority
of the people. Unfortunately, the intellectual elite of India, though following

a leftist orientation, has no sympathy for the country’s own native tradition.
They identify it as right-wing in order to express their hostility towards it.
They portray it as a majority oppression of minorities, when it is the movement
of a suppressed majority to regain

its dignity.

Not surprisingly, the same leftists in India, who have long been allied to
communist China, similarly style the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan cause as
right-wing and regressive, though

the Dalai Lama is honored by the American left. This should tell the reader
about the meaning of right and left as political terms in India. When one looks
at the Hindu movement as the assertion of a native tradition with a profound
spiritual heritage, the whole perspective on

it changes.”

Advani’s desire for a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya and Swamy’s desire for other Hindu
temples to be rebuilt on Hindu sacred sites could easily be accomplished
peacefully. For instance, when Vallabbhai Patel called for the rebuilding of
Somanath Temple in Gujarat, the task was accomplished without any rioting or
bloodshed. The ruins of the mosque were cleared away, and a new mosque was
built nearby, with the Somanath Temple rebuilt for the sixth time on the old
site. All other Hindu sacred sites could have been liberated in the same way.
Yet, Indian Muslims, and their “secular” allies like Nehru refused to
concede an inch in this regard, seeing an re-assertion of indigenous Hindu pride
as “communalism” and “fascism,” thus creating an aggrieved
Hindu constituency ready to forcibly demolish the mosque. Had Indian Muslims at
least sypathized with the need for a Hindu cultural resurgance and acknowledged
the history of Hindu persecution in India, the Ayodhya affair would have played
out different. The writer Nirad C. Chaudari put the Ayodhya situation best
when, in his Autobiography of a Forgotten Indian, he said:

“That what happened in Ayodhya should not have happened is another matter.
But I say that the Muslims do not have the slightest right to complain about
the desecration of one mosque. From 1000 A.D. every Hindu temple from Kathiawar
to Bihar, from the Himalayas to the Vindhyas has been sacked and ruined. Not
one temple was left standing all over Northern India…Temples escaped
destruction only where Muslim power did not gain access to them for reasons
such as dense forests. Otherwise it was a continuous spell of vandalism. No
nation with any self-respect will forgive this. They took over out women. And
they imposed the Zazia, the tax. Why should we forget and forgive all that?
What happened in Ayodhya would not have happened had the Muslims acknowledged
this historical argument even once.”

The claim that Golwalkar was inspired by the Nazis is another distorted
quotation from “We: Our Nationhood Defined.” As Elst points out, not
only had the Holocaust not yet happened, Golwalkar had little knowledge of
exactly what was going on in Germany at the time, or much of an understanding of
the history of European antisemitism. Indeed, Indians, who were living under
the yoke of the British Raj, had little reason to see wartime reports about the
Germans as Allied wartime propaganda. It is also important to understand that,
in the 1930s, Hitler was considered a great nationalist even in the West. Even
Winston Churchill, one of the first Europeans to acknowledge the threat of
Nazism, praised Hitler in the 1930s. Ironically, in the very same book,
Golwalkar praises the early Zionist movement, not because of its conflict with
the Muslim Arabs, as one might expect, but solely because he admires the Jewish
people’s maintaining their cultural heritage in the absence of a homeland.

“The recent attempt at rehabilitating Palestine with its ancient
population of the Jews is nothing more than an effort to reconstruct the broken
edifice and revitalize the practically dead Hebrew National life….in order to
confer their lost Nationality upon exiled Jews, the British with the help of
the League of Nations began to rehabilitate the old Hebrew country, Palestine,
with its long lost children. The Jews had maintained their race, religion,
culture and language; and all they wanted was their natural territory to
complete their Nationality. The reconstruction of the Hebrew Nation on
Palestine is just an affirmation of the fact that Country, Race,Religion,
Culture and Language must exist unequivocally together to form the Nation
idea.”

Naturally, after WWII, when the crimes of the Nazis became well known,
Golwalkar changed his views on Nazi Germany, scathingly denouncing Hitler as
the culmination of 2,000 years of Christian anti-semitism, as previously cited
in his Bunch of Thoughts. The irony, of course, is that no other Indian leader
is scrutinized in such a manner. Subhash Chandra Bose, despite openly
collaborating with both Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan, creating armies of
Indian POWs with their sponsorship, and fighting alongside them, is not
considered a fascist. Similarly, despite Jawaharlal Nehru’s open idolization of
the Soviet Union and Maoist China, he is not similarly criticized, despite the
fact that the Commiunists actually have a higher death toll than the fascists
do, and despite Nehru’s own emulation of Soviet central planning resulting in
decades of economic stagnation and starvation. Indeed, the author even sees
Indian Communist leader Sitaram Yechury as worth quoting regarding secularism
despite his party’s ideology’s long history of religious persecution.

Hindu nationalists may want a strong, dictatorial leader at the helm, but this
is hardly different than the admiration given to other “strong”
leaders like Ronald Reagan, Otto von Bismarck, Lee Kwan Yew, and Deng Xiaoping,
all of whom were dictatorial yet helped their nations immensely. The fact that
independent India has traditionally been led by characteristically
“weak” leaders, (with a few shining exceptions) cannot be ignored
when analyzing this. Indeed, as Elst points out, it is not just Hindu
nationalists, but Indians in general, who view Hitler in a more sympathetic
light. To demand that Hindutva be banned, therefore, is largely a result of a
misunderstanding of the beliefs of Hindutva ideologues.

The author’s anger at the Hindutva movement’s promoting the demolition of the
Babri Masjid is typical secularist manufactured outrage. One wonders why he is
not equally, if not more distressed at the counter-demolitions of Hindu temples
that took place in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and other parts of the Islamic world
in retribution, or at all upset over the Islamic destruction of the original
Ram Mandir temple that made the demolition necessary in the first place. It is
only in the secularist psyche that the destruction of one dilapidated mosque,
whose builders themselves saw it as representative of Islamic victory over the
hated infidel, can be seen as “heinous” while a long and bloody
history of Hindu temple destruction can be denied completely.

AFSPA would be easier to repeal were it not for the Islamofascist militancy
that makes it necessary in the first place. One wonders why the author barely
acknowledges that AFSPA is not the cause of militancy but a response to it. The
reason Hindutvavadist are less concerned with illegal immigration from Nepal or
Burma than they are with illegal immigration from Bangladesh is because Nepalis
and Burmese do not have the history of communal violence against Hindus that
Bangladeshi Muslims have. This isn’t racism, it’s simply acknowledging the
consequences of a religious distinction. Further, that the Bodos may want a
separate state or a separate nation doesn’t make them any less victims of
Bangladeshi settler aggression. Unlike the Bangladeshis, who want to Islamicize
the rest of Bengal, the Bodos can be appeased by giving them their own state,
much as how the Assamese, Nagas, Mizos, Sikkimese, and other regional ethnic
groups have their own states in the region.

As far as religious persecution in textbooks is concerned, the case so-called
Buddhist persecution at the hands of Hindus can hardly be equated with Hindu
persecution at the hands of Muslims. As Elst points out, accounts of Hindu
kings that supposedly persecuted Buddhists, are generally exaggerated or
misquoted Buddhist Puranic accounts, while accounts of Muslims rulers
persecuting Hindus are written by Muslim historians themselves. At any rate,
religious persecution by Hindus was generally the exception rather than the
rule, while in the case of Muslim rulers, it was the opposite, and still is to
this day. As far as cow slaughter and beef consumption is concerned, it is
important to read the Hindu texts that supposedly mention this correctly. Many
of the claims of beef eating in ancient India are based off of misquotations,
as the Gita Press book “A Review of ‘Beef in Ancient India’ reveals.

The notions of minority population growth is hardly propaganda, as Elst reveals
in his book “The Demographic Siege.” Nor are mosques
“purportedly” built on the sites of Hindu temples. As Sita Ram Goel
shows in his two-volume “Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them?”
Muslim rulers have long prided themselves on humiliating infidel Hindus through
their construction. To demand that Hindus scrap certain ideas simply because
they are not “sustainable secular pleas” is a noble idea but
fundamentally erroneous. Sixty five years of secularism has produced little
more than Hindu victimization at the hands of jihadists, missionaries,
Communists, and Anglophile secularists and is more than enough evidence to show
that India is not, and has never been a secular society as the West defines.
Indeed, secularism is entirely a Western concoction suitable for Western
religious realities, and that Indians insist on maintaining it, while
Westerners have no problem insisting that their nations are fundamentally
Christian, is indicative of the subservient colonialist mentality of Indian
secularists. The process of righting historical wrongs is hardly as potentially
destructive as Sitaram Yechury maintains. No one is talking about punishing the
son for the father’s crimes, but giving recompense to the father’s victims
without harming the son.

The idea that Indians are “anyone who wants to be one” is a
fundamentally flawed proposition and is indicative of intellectual bankruptcy
of Congress sycophants like Mani Shankar Aiyer. The Indian people are
ethnically, linguistically, religiously, and culturally distinct from
non-Indians, just as Chinese, French, British, Japanese, Koreans, and other
nations of people are. It is only Indian secularists who are willing to deny
their own nations uniqueness in the name of secularism, which is again evidence
of how pernicious an ideology Indian secularism is.

The idea that defining everything in terms of Hindu terminology is supremacism
and cultural hegemony is a rather ironic claim by the author. Isn’t defining
everything in terms of secularism, and rejecting things on the basis of their
compatibility with secularism also “hegemonic?” Saying that it is
“supremacism” to define everything in India in Hindu terminology is
to assume there is something inherently oppressive about doing so. But Hindu
India has a long history of both safeguarding minority rights while
simultaneously being staunchly Hindu and defining things in Dharmic terms. The
notion of India’s being a Hindu Rashtra is not incompatible with the notion of
honoring the contributions of non-Hindus in Indian nation building. That is,
indeed, how Hindu kingdoms always worked before the concept of Western
secularism was forced upon the Hindu people. In summary, though the author’s
intentions are ostensibly benign, his own biases, false claims, and double
standards taint this piece.

http://twitter.com/seeker8002 sumit

u know why we support RSS coz when we see so called secularist mahesh bhutt and digvijay Singh praising fanatic zakir naik whose sole purpose is to islimize india ,who preaches Muslim to not to accept prasad as it belongs to a false god!!! I mean what kind of secularism is this..u have a person who openly mocks religious tolerance and our secularism supports that…..u can have bigots in any religion but u can’t practice such double standards..no need to mention how secularist treat Mr. togadia

http://twitter.com/dv_tvit dv-DivineVision

Nationstates exist in a histo-geographical context and are a socio-cultural peopledynamic.Borders and Internal law and Order are static paper entities which get life only thru the people.
Q’s for all –
what is the commonbase culture of the south asian region?
who asked for partition?
who annexed PoK?
who destroyed temples?
who spurned chance for negotiated settlement or chance to relocate the disputed structure?
who keeps on demanding special rights?
who is the entity which votes enbloc undermining the concept of free and individual franchise?
By honest introspection and acceptance of facts, expression of regret and defining a roadmap…things can always improve.
Secular states are much better off as they dont enforce blasphemy,apostasy.
Yet even such secular states are not perfect- it always eminently advisable to be “at least” tolerant of the milieu where a person lives…if not possible to – embrace/respect/understand/acknowledge that milieu.
All arguments can be persuasively made there isnt any room for bluster or bombast which can always be replied to in the same tongue & set off a chain reaction.
The article raises some controversial points but doesnt answer what is hindutva?Hindutva is the entire set of customs,myths,rituals,beliefs of the Hindus as they exist from time to time…its not very statically codified or enforced…except the core principles.The core principle is basically “oneness” of existence in an inclusive sense.
Positive and Negative references to the context always exists. I agree with the author all sides shud try and add more positive references.
My compliments to the author for a piece covering a broad area.Thanks.

http://twitter.com/_Mauna_ Mauna

If I were to be completely uncharitable to this author, I would say this whole piece is the old tactic of inundating the opponent with useless trivia and keep him busy compiling defensive arguments. Some folks have already fallen prey to such a tactic – if the tactic has indeed been put to play.

On the other hand if I were to say that the author argued sincerely and with the best of intentions, I would recognize that he was anxious for Muslim safety in Hindusthan. No matter what anyone said and no matter how many the BJP or numerous other Hindu organisations issued placatory and clarificatory statements, messages or arguments – his anxieties would remain.

A thought process is either active or reactive. The author has not shown that Hindutva is not reactive so let us assume it is reactive. Hindutva is a reaction against Islam – let us say.

What can the author as a Muslim, do to assure Hindus or Hindu nationalists that Islam is benign and that Muslim intentions are benign? Can he for instance assure the Hindu nationalists that Muslims will never ever raise the demand for Shari’a in this country? As a Muslim and a brother to a billion others across the world, does he condemn such demands Muslims may make in any other country of non-Muslim majority? If the author were to look askance at such an association with “foreign” Muslims; would he then condemn any Muslim reaction and violence in Hindusthan against an event concerning “foreign” Muslims in any other country?

http://twitter.com/himanshuprata_p himanshu pratap

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEds6UcjS54 defination of hindutav .daughter of veer savarkar herself said that bjp and shivsena are not a hindutav party.if author wants to know about hindutav he can read book written by veer savarkar.veer savarkar was frustrated with ideology of mahatma gandhi and indian muslims.you already know about the duplicity of gandhi and mopla vidroh.if you dnt knw then you can watch simple dialog between gandhi and savarkar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEds6UcjS54 it is not real but based on real conversation.and i dont want to tell you about akhand bharat because that is something different and recquires more time…..and present speaks more then the past just google it muslim destroyed temple or muslim destroyed church you will find which peacefull? religion followers destroying temples and churches,,,,,,communalization of education is not right phrase to use we can call this process purification of education.because our current education system is rubbish because history books just tell you about mughal empire but dont tell you about atrocities they give to hindus and sikhs,,,our current books tells you about tajmahal but cant tell you about tejomahalay. so it is necessary to start purification of education.

rohit

what a truck load of bullshit this article is! he asks about equality right? where is the equality without a uniform civil code? how about a muslim writer writing against these:-

any of it? no. he just simply draws conclusions out of what he considers “truth”. u want to look at how a muslim society treats non-muslims? take a look at ur neighbour next door! PAKISTAN!

ever wondered howcome hindus and sikhs which were 25% and 10% of pakistani population in 1948 are today less than 1% while muslims in india grew from 4 to 16%. and still we are the intolerant lot??

take a look at minority persecution in pakistan, afghanistan, saudi arab.
u want to know why we hate radical islam and favour hindutva in defence?
bcoz…there is not a single muslim country on this planet, where non-muslim minorities have ever flourished during the course of history! not even one!

and yet u dare compare us to nazism? how about writing an article on MF Hussain insulting hindu gods at the pretext of freedom of speech and yet never daring to draw mohammad! how about writing an article on wrong doings of love jihad? how about writing on brutal islamic invasion of a hindu india ?

nah…u dont have what it takes. coz ur a typical hypocrite! writing articles isnt ur foray, go ran sack some public property coz some unknown guy has offended u by making a movie on mohammad 1000s of miles away.

let me say it very clearly. yes we are hindus and we dont see any shame any longer in calling ourselves as pro-hindutva hindus, coz we have seen what islam has for us to offer.

….and we will no longer buy ur pseudo secularism. get lost.

Politically Incorrect

my comments have got nothing to do with the article (about which the less said the better), but what truly surprises, in fact shocks me is that the editors of CRI have not exercised their editorial control to moderate some of the comments which are really appalling and pedestrian in the way they attack the author or the article. Since when did CRI let its comments section become as debased as the comments section on Youtube? It is truly atrocious that swear words have been let in. As a well-wisher of the forum, I request you to preserve the lofty standards that people have come to expect of CRI in the way it conducts its discussions or debates.

http://twitter.com/sumanthbharatha Sumanth Sharma

Could not agree more PI.

Vishwajeet Bhardwaz

The author is very ill read and is biased on his views… hatred and revenge by Hindu is not a religious pogrom but a retaliation of what the “sword religion” has done to India and half of this world.. not a single “sword religion nation” is peaceful.. introspect and then think of write some crap herein. I don’t think other religions in India demand special status, sharia, Muslim law kind of thing.. Only you intolerant people are harassed i think..

Skanda

It is difficult to expect either an accurate or an honest write up from majority of Hindus today, forget Saif. Put in a short and simple way, Hindutva is the movement of Hindu defense which emerges in the backdrop of centuries of non-stop onslaughts on the subcontinent. While they were explicitly military earlier, today their religious-political nature remains – along with their violent nature. So the military defense was the right one in the past and the socio-political one in the present situation. While this Saif has ably shown the acts of defense, he does not for obvious reasons go into the causation – isn’t it, Saif?